Originally posted by Robtard
No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about.
So Robbie has just stated that He approved of Government Sanctioned Genocide as long as "No One Cares About Them".
Gee I can think of a few others that apperantly Thought the Same Way as Robbie!
Robbie does fit in with this little Group of Leftists.
Originally posted by Robtard
No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about.
That was something I heard people start saying after a year of no WMDs being found. "We just had to take the evil Saddam out." More cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by RobtardNo they didn't, and they didn't in the first to stop an Arab superstate. If they had it might have been much more palatable although I doubt the people at home would have allowed it to happen.
No Western nation went to war in Iraq 2.0 cos of genocide, that was just an excuse. The people that Saddam was killing, no government cared about.
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Agreed. Why are people like you trying to change History because you weren't aware that there really were WMDs and Saddam was going to revitalize his WMD programs?
This was not why we went to war:
[quote] "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West," -snip
Emphasis on "long abandoned". Bush's pretense for war was bs, getting techincal about the defintion of a wmd isn't going to change that. That you refuse to address the singular point I've made is rather telling of how desperate your revisionism is.
More cognitive dissonance.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide"😉 or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?"😉 now?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
If I'd ever claimed they weren't wmd's, this might be more than strawmanning. Reading is good.
And who said I was only talking about what you said? A bit presumptuous aren't we?
Also, a little reading comprehension is in order here, too, sport.
Notice the "even tho technically they were" (meaning: an acceptance that they were WMD's but not the WMD's that were "acceptable" as justification) as part of the quotations?
Fail.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I've already admitted that it's wrong to say there were no wmd's,
Thanks! 👆
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
...however to claim that we found what was used to justify the war is wrong.
You will look long and hard at my entire posting history and you won't find me supporting foreign wars like that and I was especially vocal about my opposition to the Iraq War. I am very strongly opposed to things like murder and killing, you see. And, for me, the absolute worst thing possible is the taking of innocent life. How many innocents did we kill with "collateral damage" in Iraq? Mistakes?
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
This was not why we went to war:
The rest of your post is just you going in special ed circles...
yawn
Originally posted by NibedicusTo be honest war is rarely a good thing, but sometimes it's needed to protect the interests of the Euro-American Empire and its allies.
I don't get it, was the war on Iraq (getting rid of Saddam) a good thing ("stop the genocide"😉 or a bad thing ("but they were not WMD's even tho technically they were?"😉 now?
Originally posted by Putinbot1
To be honest war is rarely a good thing, but sometimes it's needed to protect the interests of the Euro-American Empire and its allies.
Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.
Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions.
Originally posted by Robtard
Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions.
I think you're right about everything except to the severity of #3. I don't think Iraq is as unstable as you're assessing. I'm open to changing my mind, however. Smack my face with some recent assessments.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you're right about everything except to the severity of #3. I don't think Iraq is as unstable as you're assessing. I'm open to changing my mind, however. Smack my face with some recent assessments.
I've not keep track of Iraq in some time, so if it's moved forward and is stable or mores stable, fair enough.
Originally posted by RobtardIraq is a mess, like most of the middle east, held together by hated/loved generals (to use the roman model).
Iraq 2.0 was so war machine corporations could rake in billions at the expense of the US tax payer, millionaires/billionaires who held stock in said companies could get richer and to set up a US friendly regime in Iraq like we had in Iran prior to the Iranian Revolution.Agenda #1 and #2 were achieved, eg Halliburton and its subsidiaries like KBR raked in high billion dollar contracts. The US ultimately failed in agenda #3, Iraq is a broken mess and I wouldn't be surprised if a civil war breaks out between the factions.
You have to understand through the friendly regime was needed Rob. I'm no war monger and I know a lot of people who served in it as do probably most people here. I think it was ill-judged in aftercare, you'd be terrified if you heard how fondly many non-Saudi Arabs talk of Sadaam. Especially, Egyptians and Syrians. It actually creeps me out how loved by a significant number he was.
^Not that uncommon I find. I know a guy whose father was one of Gaddafi's bodyguards a long time ago and he constantly sang his praises, know a few Russians who revere Putin too. Due to this I'm always wary of believing the western media's stance on non-western leaders, at least not at face value anyway.
Originally posted by Robtard
TBF though in regards to Putin, he has lots and lots of fanbois. eg Just look at Trump, Trumpers and many in the current US Republican Party
You’re an idiot.
I have some form of respect for Putin for the sole fact he cares little to nothing what the rest of the world thinks of him.
But you’re still an idiot if you’re still believing anyone that not screaming for Putin’s head or just fanboys of him.
Originally posted by SquallX
You’re an idiot.I have some form of respect for Putin for the sole fact he cares little to nothing what the rest of the world thinks of him.
But you’re still an idiot if you’re still believing anyone that not screaming for Putin’s head or just fanboys of him.
^ Another emotional meltdown from the rageaholic. Also didn't really refute what I said. Go figure.